|
On August 10 2017 20:58 Clbull wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2017 14:10 ReachTheSky wrote:
One more thing that created a divide in the community.
Invitationals.
So many players kept getting free rides into tournaments based early performances. Had there been open enrollment into all the tournaments, the community would have felt included and apart of something. In addition, you would have seen many more up and coming players/new blood. Everyone would have had to earn their keep. no free rides. Instead this allowed a small group of individuals to always be labeled as pro gamers and protect their status while minimizing opportunities for new comers.
There are very few players that I felt were undeserving of these free rides. Making everything an open tournament also brings in the flaw of not being able to build up storylines around popular players in case they either underperform or are outclassed by new talent.
I despise your attitude. To you, directed stories are more important than good games and good players. A scene with open tournaments is self-regulating and creates stories on its own. Bad players have to go and new, better ones replace them and maybe those bad players get better and make a comeback later. Your own arguments contradict you. Giving out so many invitations also robs newcomers of their chance to play established players which just hurts overall.
|
On August 11 2017 01:14 Ravomat wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2017 20:58 Clbull wrote:On August 10 2017 14:10 ReachTheSky wrote:
One more thing that created a divide in the community.
Invitationals.
So many players kept getting free rides into tournaments based early performances. Had there been open enrollment into all the tournaments, the community would have felt included and apart of something. In addition, you would have seen many more up and coming players/new blood. Everyone would have had to earn their keep. no free rides. Instead this allowed a small group of individuals to always be labeled as pro gamers and protect their status while minimizing opportunities for new comers.
There are very few players that I felt were undeserving of these free rides. Making everything an open tournament also brings in the flaw of not being able to build up storylines around popular players in case they either underperform or are outclassed by new talent. I despise your attitude. To you, directed stories are more important than good games and good players. A scene with open tournaments is self-regulating and creates stories on its own. Bad players have to go and new, better ones replace them and maybe those bad players get better and make a comeback later. Your own arguments contradict you. Giving out so many invitations also robs newcomers of their chance to play established players which just hurts overall.
I wish there was a like button for this post. You get an upvote good sir.
|
On August 10 2017 14:05 ReachTheSky wrote:The thread you linked with the survey about cheesing proves nothing. You can't even see who voted. Every single thing i've said is legitimate feedback. Things that turned me and many others away from wanting to be apart of the sc2 community/playing the game.
I re-read one of your earlier posts and saw that by "old guard" you mean the brood war progamers and teams switching to SC2. I missed that detail and thought you meant the entire BW community before, my bad. I reacted because what I remember is that in the bigger (not just progamers) BW community, cheese was something that pissed off a minority but was accepted by most as brining excietement and strategic diversity to the game.
If you spoke with progamers back then I'll take your word for it. I mean it makes sense because cheese makes it about just micro and those people with really good macro skills might get annoyed when a player tries to bypass one of their skills. So it's not surprising from a psychological standpoint if the pros frowned upon it. (even though it's super exciting to see cheese every now and then as a viever and removing it would hurt the experience).
If they really did have an impact on the design of SC2 that's a shame and I guess the lesson to be learned is that it's important to listen to the viewers of the game as well as the pros.
|
On August 11 2017 02:16 KungKras wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2017 14:05 ReachTheSky wrote:The thread you linked with the survey about cheesing proves nothing. You can't even see who voted. Every single thing i've said is legitimate feedback. Things that turned me and many others away from wanting to be apart of the sc2 community/playing the game. I re-read one of your earlier posts and saw that by "old guard" you mean the brood war progamers and teams switching to SC2. I missed that detail and thought you meant the entire BW community before, my bad. I reacted because what I remember is that in the bigger (not just progamers) BW community, cheese was something that pissed off a minority but was accepted by most as brining excietement and strategic diversity to the game. If you spoke with progamers back then I'll take your word for it. I mean it makes sense because cheese makes it about just micro and those people with really good macro skills might get annoyed when a player tries to bypass one of their skills. So it's not surprising from a psychological standpoint if the pros frowned upon it. (even though it's super exciting to see cheese every now and then as a viever and removing it would hurt the experience). If they really did have an impact on the design of SC2 that's a shame and I guess the lesson to be learned is that it's important to listen to the viewers of the game as well as the pros.
The MothershipCore with the Nexus overcharge was literally designed for: "stopping terran cheeses" to quote DB.
|
On August 10 2017 22:54 kajtarp wrote:
I think one main reason that wrecked sc2 is that it got fragmented into expansions. Dividing the single player campaign and the story is ok. Dividing the multiplayer was a total bullshit. Because they always had to cut out some units that hurted the races, the gameplay and the balance. And the whole game is a patch fest, because with every new expansion they just started a never ending patch spree. After a few years of patches where the game finally got into a more or less balanced state, a new expansion always came out literally resetting the whole process, and it had to be restarted again and again. Sometimes i imagine if we had lurkers, disruptors, adepts, cyclones, hellbats, vipers etc. from the very beginning in what shape this game could have been. I am 100% certain much better, than the current shape of the game.
That's probably a good point, and goes into the idea that SC2 just had an archaic business model. Especially when you have so many alternatives for competitive multiplayer games nowadays.
I dont think it was "that bad" because the expansions were 2 years apart, compared to WC3/BW where the expansion was just 1 year apart. But that's me.
|
SC2 is not fragmented into expansions, the "expansions" are just big paid patches, the amount of people that play an old version of the game is not significant.
|
On August 11 2017 10:04 opisska wrote:
SC2 is not fragmented into expansions, the "expansions" are just big paid patches, the amount of people that play an old version of the game is not significant.
No, but it could fragment the playerbase. "Oh I'm in the mood to play SC2....but I don't want to spend another 40 dollars for an expansion pack, I'll go playing something else instead".
|
Australia4514 Posts
I'm late to this party. But i think one of the biggest contributors is lack of high ground advantage. It was one of my complaints when SC2 was first released.
Without HGA.
- Creates deathballs.
- Players with the biggest army wins. Almost always. particularly with the way army damage stacks, (2 even armies will result in almost no survivors, but an army 10% larger will live with 50% of their army etc)
- You can not split your army into two, as the other player will keep his army together, kill 1 army and then go kill the other. (there are other exceptions, ie , retreating with one army etc etc)
- Creates a very linear gameplay towards making the biggest army. (death balls)
- Death balls results in a lot of 'nothing' happening, and then 1 sudden clash and the game ends. (particularly bad in War3, where is creep killing and then 1 fight and game is over. Not quite as bad in SC2, where more skirmishes occur.)
With HGA.
- A player can skip the largest army in exchange for a strategic decision.
- I can now give up my army advantage, to do drops. To tech in different ways. To turtle if i so desire. Knowing that i am safe on my ramp against an army larger than my own.
- Does not apply to just defensive play, but you can camp above their ramps, or in strategic locations on the map creating mild stale mates with armies that are mismatched.
- I can now do drops. Or tech changes, or turtle by taking island bases knowing that i can hold a ramp.
- Creates non-linear gameplay.
- Allows a losing player to do epic comebacks.
All of this allows for interesting gameplay options, and viewability.
There have been so many games, where i am dead. Dead. and i barely hold the high ground and do an epic comeback. Both fun/memorable to play. And fun to watch when it happens. In sc2. They just steam roll over the top.
--
A few other things;
- Unit stacking/movement, also adding to death balls.
- Graphics prettiness/unit stacking makes it harder for new 'viewers'/'spectators' understanding what is going on.
- Ladder System / Replays / more players, improved the skill much faster, making it harder for singular players becoming gods for long periods creating epic storylines /rivalries. (yes yes there still are some)
Now not all of these things are bad, a game without a decent match making system sucks and i would prefer it to have it rather than to go without. But there are pros and cons to everything.
|
^agree
alternative option - cut damage by 30% across all units (also healing effects) and slightly improve static defense options.
|
On August 11 2017 14:07 saddaromma wrote:
^agree
alternative option - cut damage by 30% across all units (also healing effects) and slightly improve static defense options.
Wouldn't that just make heavily armored units OP? It can't be that simple. Static defensive structures, units, and anilities are already too strong according to some.
|
On August 11 2017 10:04 opisska wrote:
SC2 is not fragmented into expansions, the "expansions" are just big paid patches, the amount of people that play an old version of the game is not significant.
Yes it was/is fragmented. Because races were castrated from the very beginning. So by fragmented, i don't mainly mean the playerbase, i mean the gameplay and the races. Everyone knew in WoL for example that Zergs are not what Zergs meant to be in the end. Only in the 2nd expansion did Blizzard add lurkers for example. Imagine if Jaedong had Lurkers and strong LotV like hydras in HotS... Same goes with other terran or toss units. If we had all the "this is how the final state of the game meant to be" units from the very beginning, especially during the most competetive years i'm certain we have a lot better game now.
Instead we start with WoL in 2010 July with castrated races, game is balanced around the castrated races. They release Heart of the Swarm in 2013 March. They add some new units and abilities for each race, but its still not what the final game is meant to be. But again, new units, new abilities balance process has to be started again from scratch. It again takes a year or more, to get the balance more or less right, but it is still not what the final state of Sc2 was meant to be.
Then Legacy of the Void is released at 2015 November. Again some new units, some new abilities, balancing has to be restarted again. And usual, they dont get it right. Literally every race has units the other races complain against. One year later, they release a new big patch to fix the game. Even tough LotV is what the game was meant to be in the end, after a year they have to release a patch, a huge patch, that again redifines units and abilities and races, its almost so big change like a seperate expansion. That was called patch 3.8.0 if i remember correctly, and was released around 2016 november. So Wings of Liberty was released in July 2010, and up until 2016 november people played SC2 that is not considered the final state.
Imagine we had that patch 3.8.0 or something similar in end of 2011 or beginning of 2012 instead of end of 2016. What would have been the difference? The most competitive years would have been played with the "final" game. Where most players,teams,sponsors and viewers were around, and many of the BW pros. Now both the competitive and the non competitive playerbase is shrinked. Sponsors are almost gone, teams are disbanded, only a few remains. And after 7 years of Wol release, the balance is still not right. And many of the retired pros never got the chance to play the final game on a big stage.
|
I also think the lackluster storylines deterred people from buying the next expansion. I for sure wasn't as hyped for the HotS campaign as much as I was for WoL, and I wasn't excited at all for LotV.
|
On August 11 2017 21:03 kajtarp wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2017 10:04 opisska wrote:
SC2 is not fragmented into expansions, the "expansions" are just big paid patches, the amount of people that play an old version of the game is not significant. Instead we start with WoL in 2010 July with castrated races, game is balanced around the castrated races. They release Heart of the Swarm in 2013 March. They add some new units and abilities for each race, but its still not what the final game is meant to be. But again, new units, new abilities balance process has to be started again from scratch. It again takes a year or more, to get the balance more or less right, but it is still not what the final state of Sc2 was meant to be.
I'm quite certain that they weren't "castrated". Blizzard didn't have some big vision about what the final versions of the races should be that they kept back and fed us little by little. Back when they were still considering even removing the carrier they thought they couldn't even just add stuff to what was already there but eventually decided it wouldn't be a problem. It just took them that long to iterate on the multiplayer... Of course if they could've had the freedom to make major changes and not wait until an expansion they might have done it faster.
|
France2027 Posts
because they didn't have a clear vision of what races play styles could be like when they made SC2, they were focusing on making cool individual units so that they could just add more "cool" individual units to justify expansion packs, dustin browder said it "we're not trying to do anything in terms of style for each race we're just trying to make sure that every single unit is really cool and have that potential for awe moments", in other words to deal terrible terrible damage in some situations
dustin browder also admited that when he came at blizzard, he had no understanding of the difference in quality between blizzard games and C&C that he worked on. It appears he never actually grasped how starcraft works and was simply unable as well as possibly unwilling to design a sequel that had a comparable potential. It simply wasn't even the goal of the project.
this is my honest perspective on the matter, DK only followed the logic that DB worked on and amplified it while erasing the stuff that got in the way, the other half of the marketing plan revolved around investment in esports and advertising / image building / capitalizing on the "starcraft" brand.
|
Remember when we wanted chat rooms and got Facebook integration? Remember how difficult Blizzard made life for PC Bangs? Remember how the competitive scene was a joke for the first 2 years, with GSL behind a paywall to boot?
|
On August 12 2017 08:14 VelRa_G wrote:
Remember when we wanted chat rooms and got Facebook integration? Remember how difficult Blizzard made life for PC Bangs? Remember how the competitive scene was a joke for the first 2 years, with GSL behind a paywall to boot?
Or that infamous "Do people really want chat channels" interview.
|
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/I2Qu0oK.jpg)
User was warned for this post
|
God damn i cant wait for reality to kick you guys in the face. Its gonna be great
User was warned for this post
|
On August 12 2017 13:43 Heyjoray wrote:
God damn i cant wait for reality to kick you guys in the face. Its gonna be great
Thanks buddy!
|
On August 12 2017 09:30 KungKras wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2017 08:14 VelRa_G wrote:
Remember when we wanted chat rooms and got Facebook integration? Remember how difficult Blizzard made life for PC Bangs? Remember how the competitive scene was a joke for the first 2 years, with GSL behind a paywall to boot? Or that infamous "Do people really want chat channels" interview.
Ah yes. I remember newcomers not understanding how great bnet 1 was and believing that blizzard had a "plan" regarding social features on bnet when in fact they were clueless. The entire sc2 community should thank the "old guard" because without them your battlenet 2 would still have no chat channels.
Remember when there were no chat channels?
Remember when you could only pm people?
Remember when you could only pm people when they are in your friendslist?
Remember when the only way to add a friend was via Email adress that is linked to your battle net account?
Remember when you had to use an outside bnet2 chat program to give that E-mail adress to somebody?
Remember when the only way to invite someone in a lobby was if they were in your friendslist?
Remember how every added "friend" was able to see your full name?
Remember when there was no Dnd mode when chat finally got implemented? (I guess every youtuber/streamer remembers)
Anyone arguing that Blizzard had a concrete "plan" when it comes to the social features of sc2/bnet2 or that they had a good reason to ditch the old system is delusional. The classic system is working better to this date.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
